You are here

Archived: Highfield Surgery Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 18 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Highfield Surgery on 18 January 2017. Overall the practice is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • People were protected by a strong, comprehensive safety system and a focus on openness, transparency and learning when things went wrong. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses. Opportunities for learning from internal and external incidents were maximised.

  • Risks to patients were comprehensively assessed and well managed.

  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff were sufficiently trained and had the appropriate knowledge and experience to effectively deliver care and treatment.

  • Patient outcomes were in line with or above local and national averages.

  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and that they were suitably involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.

  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.

  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.

  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.

  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

Professor Steve Field (CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP) 

Chief Inspector of General Practice

Inspection carried out on 25 June 2014

During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made

When we inspected Highfield Surgery on 6 November 2013, we found that people were not fully protected against the risk of infection. Some systems designed to reduce the risk and spread of infection were lacking. There were no cleaning schedules in place or documented checks that cleaning was completed properly. Due to damage, some fixtures and fittings could not be cleaned properly and privacy curtains were not disposed of in accordance with the practice’s own policy. We judged this to have a minor impact on people using the service.

We inspected the service again, to check improvements had been made. During this inspection, we found that systems were in place designed to reduce the risk and spread of infection. Our conversations with staff, observations of the environment and review of cleaning and infection control related documentation demonstrated that cleaning schedules were in place. We saw that an adequate supply of cleaning equipment colour coded to match the schedule was available. Checks were completed on the standard of cleanliness and where issues were identified, action was taken to rectify them. We saw there were written assessments on the cleaning products used at the service to identify potential hazards from accidental release or contact.

The fixtures and fittings we looked at, such as couches and curtain rails were clean and in a good state of repair. All of the privacy curtains were dated and within their required date of disposal.

Inspection carried out on 6 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. One patient said, “My views and opinions are sought and they’re respected.”

We spoke with a practice GP who was able to clearly describe the practice’s care and treatment process for patients. The service had a systematic approach to reviewing and recording patients’ test results and their care requirements.

The service had not fully managed the risk of infection within the practice.

We found medicines were stored systematically in the nurses’ treatment room. The service had adequate emergency equipment in place and available if required to deal with an emergency situation.

We found gaps in three staff files in relation to the recruitment process but found that action had been taken to review current employment contracts for staff.

We spoke with four staff members and they all confirmed they felt supported by the practice manager and GPs at the practice. We saw records of training courses completed by staff members.

We saw that audits were completed regularly by the practice manager and practice nurses. We saw minutes of practice meetings which showed that regular discussions on service provision were held to appropriately identify, assess and manage the needs of patients registered with the practice.